User talk:TracyMcClark/Archive 4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
MoMK
What's the latest over on Meredith Kercher. Saw something on Gwen Gale's page thought was interesting.Malke2010 18:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Not much happened at the article itself and I myself was absent for a view days and still have not much time to give you a comprehensive update about it besides that we were at ANI again and I have to update myself first. Still don't have much time (and nerve) for that but intend to do the latter of my previous sentence ASAP. BTW, looking at Gwen's page myself: You're easily offended (if I may say so) and you should grow a thicker skin to bounce off any remarks you feel offended by. Just a thought I had for quite a while and wanted to let you know. Wish you the best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't ask me about the "3 hour Skype call...". Editors who claim this don't provide a citation at talk and I sure don't have the time right now to google the grounds of the claim. That's the same old over there: Making claims without providing the source and I'm sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo tired of this. In comparison, I rather spent my time talking to you which is way more pleasant than all that "crap" (excuse my French) piling up at the MoMK pages.
- And yes, I'll try to remember to "put certain stuff in German". XD. Best to you, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Regarding the Skype call(s), there are more than (this) one but again, editors should include their source(s) when making a claim at the article's talkpage. That is (neglected) common practice (and part of WP policy) since not every editor is soooooo dedicated to one article and keeps a hundred + links handy organized on his/her PC. I don't, and any new or frequent editor at the page sure doesn't either. Maybe I should create a template with a standard reply to unsourced allegations on talkpages :)? Mal sehen ob mir da was gutes einfaellt ;) ! Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Ja, ja?", Oh ja XDXDXD........ The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- I will if do so from now on whenever I have the time for since it seems to be the only way to get some improvement at that article. One single editor did it for several month so I guess it's time for every other editors to do the same. Du verstehst mein Belangen sicherlich, nicht wahr? Cheers, and stay with US as we really need a lot of constant input over there. Nun werde ich mich meinem Abendessen widmen aber vieleicht schaue ich spaehter nochmal rein. And yes, I do like having a smile on my face ;) ; Makes the hardship I'm facing a bit easier. Bestens, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ich denke nicht. W/o checking the context, I would see it as a strong opinion of an editor who might or might not have a point. If you don't like to have it on your talkpage just delete it with something like: "Thanks for your opinion but keep it for yourself as I have no use for it" in your edit summary. That's what I would do. But now I really have to eat something and since I'm the cook in the house I'll better get going. Hope I was of help, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
MLauba (Talk) 21:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
- Done [4].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
check email. :D Malke2010 00:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'll do but please don't expect a "Antwort" today as I'm about to call it a day ;) (although I might make small edits here later, just the stuff I don't have to use my brain XD The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "XD" you "gave me" a while ago. Love to use it. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- As you know, I checked, received your message and your follow up. I might respond to the second one although there might be no need for as I agree with you in the main part but would need to check the on-Wiki part to give a useful and valuable answer. I'm hooked up with real life issues and a "certain" Wiki article's talkpage as you know. So please don't "bitch-slap" me if you won't get an answer soon XD. You sure understand. As always, best to you, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Done:[5]. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Catch 22
TMC-k, you reminded me that "You forgot that any uninvolved editor is immediately marked as involved by one editor...". How true! Joseph Heller's "Catch 22" is one of my favourite books of all time, and isn't this a perfect example? Only an uninvolved editor can be trusted to delete stuff from the talk page; but anyone who deletes stuff from the talk page immediately identifies themselves as 'involved'! Bluewave (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I didn't read the book but I did see the movie long time ago and several times since then. It is in my top ten of my favorite movies. I'll bet I would love the book two and should read it before my time comes ;) . So yes, I agree and I too think that we're dealing with a catch 22. Nothing one can do about besides ignoring any hold-up and just go ahead improving the article while using the talkpage mostly just to let editors know that one made a change to the article if the editsummary doesn't give enough space. You sure get my thought. On the side, gosh, I'm listening to Eric Satie and the interpretation of the guy playing is in part very annoying, dismantling my concentration on what I'm writing but gladly I'm done for now and can switch to the same by one of my favorite pianists, and will do so quickly as it starts to hurt. Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I have to confess to never really having listened to Eric Satie's music, but my musical tastes are pretty wide-ranging: on Tuesday, I was at a concert of Red Priest who were playing Bach (including the famous D minor Toccata and Fuge, played on descant recorder!); a few days earlier I was at a concert of Paul Jones and Dave Kelly who were playing delta blues; yesterday evening I was myself playing Byrd and Morley viol music with a small group of (very amateur) friends, and tomorrow I'm having a thrash with a (similarly very amateur) blues group, where we'll be working on some Allman Brothers, Eric Clapton and Johnny Winter! So I promise I'll try and listen to some Satie and broaden my musical tastes a bit further. Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- If you listen to Satie for the first time make sure you start by listening to Alicia de Larrocha's Satie interpretation as she was one of the best. Just believe me :)
- Interresting and nice to know that you're playing an instrument and amazingly your blues choice from above which you intend to play with your friends are all valued by my myself. No kidding. Enjoy and have fun and take a brake of "a certain article", Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Next time I'll have a party it'll be when I live in a big house again (as I used to when I did better) and I'll hire you and your band as my guests to enjoy partying and playing while you can :). Till then, save for the air-fair as you will have to pay for it by yourself. (I'm not Rockefeller). Don't forget to add Satie to your repertoire ;). Cheers, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Rewrite
I've been struggling a bit with how to edit the rewrite page. I wonder if it would be better for us to have two pages: one with the reference copy of the old text, and one for the new stuff. One of the problems, for example, is the handling of references, where, with the current setup, we have two references sections (which doesn't really work). PS I'm not having a whinge about this, just trying to think of the best way forward :-) Cheers. Bluewave (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- As I indicated here in my editsummary I'm struggling myself with my initial set-up of the page and you've just brought up another very good point I wasn't thinking about at all, till now. I don't think setting up yet another sub-page would be a good idea and helpful. I still have to think about it further but a possible (and helpful) solution would be to hotlink the existing citations from the "old" page. Please let me know if you have a better idea but keep in mind that as I pointed out above, setting up another page might not be the best solution if you ask me. Best wishes from America to Britain, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- That might be a simple solution since the link to the page as it was at the time is given. And you say you don't have solutions. How British are you really? The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- BTW, your blue boxes which you added to your own attempt for a rewrite/change might come in handy at the "official?" rewrite page to leave some remarks and suggestions about what was done and what is still missing (and such).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Most, if not all credit goes to Bluewave. It just happened to be in my userspace which I provided. ;) But you might want to opinionate at the drafts talkpage so we see where we are regarding merging (replacing) the draft into the main article. There is no rush and even so editors who commented by now seem to be in favor to go ahead, one editor pointed out problems with citations which should be addressed before we seek consensus to merge. I think that those problems are more severe in the actual article and a merge would be an improvement anyways and the problems can be merged out easier once we have the more encyclopedic version in place. But that's just opinionating my two cents into it. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
One event
I see your comments about Amanda Knox. I do not have a strong opinion about her. However, if she is not notable enough for an article, how about obscure man Fawaz Abd Al Aziz Al Zahrani. Someone like him was nominated for AFD and kept. Sorry if it sounds racist but I do not know that article's name....the names sound alike. Rather than tell me "go ahead nominate it for AFD", I seek wisdom on how to have consistency in Wikipedia. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Reviewer granted
You have been granted the 'reviewer' userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 13:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Courtesy note
Hi. Since I mentioned your name/activity at this AN/I (regarding another editor), I thought I should pay you the courtesy of letting you know. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
danke :D
hallo mein Freund, Danke für die freundlichen Wörter. Sie sind ein guter Freund, und ich liebe Sie.Malke2010 23:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Wie werden Sie durch das Zeichen auf Ihrer Seite nicht zum Narren gehalten? Es hielt mich heute zum Narren.Malke2010 23:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- Gern geschehen. My comment just reflected what I thought would be the best outcome for you and Wiki. Liebe Gruesse und herzlichen Dank fuer die Blumen, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Sie sind willkommen. :D Malke2010 23:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
- PS: Ich werde mich doch nicht selber zum Narren machen auf meiner eigenen Seite, ich falle nur manchmal auf anderen Seiten darauf rein ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Die Person, die Probleme macht, ist jetzt in Schwierigkeiten. Vielleicht seit langem?Malke2010 23:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
- Fuer Monate um genau zu sein.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hallo Malke. Ich denke dass auch wenn eine gewisse Verbindung zwischen den beiden nicht von der Hand zu weisen ist, scheint dem "neuen" user, (er hat einen belegten "legit SPA account"), der Unterschied zwischen einem blog/forum und Wiki mittlerweile klar zu sein und, "he doesn't engage in edit-warring". Ich denke, er kann durchaus positives zu dem Artikel beitragen wenn er moechte. Man wird sehen ;)
- Gruesse aus dem Sueden, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- PS: Das mit der mentorin scheint wirklich gut zu laufen und das freut mich sehr.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Natuerlich freue ich mich darueber. Wir wollen doch keine so netten "good faith" Editoren wie Dich durch Missverstaendnisse verlieren ;) . Bleib sauber (wie die Deutschen so sagen), herzlichst, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
:~)
Thx!--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Fake message notification
Enogh time was wasted with this. The actual issue was resolved quite quickly (within minutes). So please, no drama fest on my page.
|
|---|
|
Please remove it. It gets old very quickly and is considered disruptive. Thanks. Edison (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Edit warringI left a message on Coneslayer's talk page. Please don't edit war on your own talk page over an inflammatory comment you made. I suggest you take the hint that the user isn't happy with your comment and deal with that state of affairs. From my perspective (just someone who has this page on a watchlist for a reason I can't remember), this looks like a conversation which could have benefited from fewer sharp words all around. But don't turn it into a farce by edit warring. Protonk (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Fake edit notice issueI wanted to point out that contrary to what you've said in the RD its a common issue with a whole subpage of discussions Wikipedia talk:User page/UI spoofing as well as I'm pretty sure a whole lot more in other places like the VP, ANI etc. And quite a few users have been asked to remove theirs hence why it's in the guidelines Wikipedia:User pages#Simulated MediaWiki interfaces (and from memory has been for over a year). Even if it isn't so insidious as the one you describe it's still likely to cause confusion. While it's good that you removed it on request, complaining about people asking for it to be removed whatever the shortcomings of the way they asked, particularly when it's in the guidelines (which while it would have been ideal if they had pointed out to you, experienced users should be familiar with themselves or at least willing to check before they try to defend their actions) and has been the subject of multiple discussions elsewhere not only one as you claimed (which again while it would have been ideal if they have pointed out to you, you could have checked yourself) is not usually the way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
Please
It is perfectly ok to remove one's own comments when there is not a discussion. Please to not try to humiliate others. Also if you want to launch a big investigation, then ask why there is a time lag resulting in a page protected page with an old version. I only looked at the article once so there is not an old cache copy. Thank you. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
question
How did you collapse the thread above? I tried to do that with a thread I wanted to be closed, and I used the "hat" but then it closed off the post you made after it. I only knew I had a message because of the message banner. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- By placing {{Collapse bottom}} at the end what I just did with this edit to fix what I should've seen earlier.TMCk (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
MoMK round 2
Bluewave posted a wonderful grammatical analysis of the "has/had" thing, another editor agreed, so I'm thinking we should make another request for the change, using Bluewave's post as the basis. What do you think?Malke 2010 (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Indeed. Bluewave's explanation is far more comprehensive and convincing than I could have done. I know I kinda suck when it comes to explaining a rationale like that one online (I do much better in real life face to face discussions).
- As for the edit I think we should wait a bit and see if there are more responses coming. Last night I left it to the discretion of the responding admin who then decided not to go ahead with the edit before consensus is obvious so I think we should do just that. There is no deadline on WP and it doesn't really hurt to have the sentence as is. It's just a minor edit which I thought would go through w/o the usual endless discussion we are soooo familiar with on the MoMK talkpage. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello again
It's good to see you active at MoMK again. As you know, there are a lot of new editors wading in and the page seems to be in need of a few more experienced editors! By the way, a few days ago someone (though I'm afraid it wasn't Alicia de Larrocha) played me one of the Gymnopedies. I have to confess that I'd always thought it was written by Debussy (yes, OK, so I'm a Phillistine). But it is beautiful music! Bluewave (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Although I didn't contribute much at MoMK lately I still watch and read pretty much everything there and in other related wiki places but bc of health reasons I can only contribute occasionally on somehow complicated matters. (I constantly have to relearn the languages I speak. Quite a challenge but manageable.
- As for Alicia de Larrocha and Satie: I'm quite impressed that you didn't forget and I'm pleased to hear that you liked what I suggested to you. BTW, that you mistakenly thought it was written by Debussy is in my opinion understandable ;) . TMCk (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Amazingly editors that where not affected by this silly old joke took it quite serious and out of proportion as you can see in the above thread and it's history (as I removed one editors comment thus the edit warring charge... on my own talkpage). Funny, somehow.TMCk (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Blimey, I hadn't seen that! I thought that the discussion about whether had versus has might slant an article towards a particular POV was the daftest debate I'd ever seen on Wikipedia, but I should have checked that collapsed section of your talk page. That takes the biscuit. Bluewave (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- Amazingly editors that where not affected by this silly old joke took it quite serious and out of proportion as you can see in the above thread and it's history (as I removed one editors comment thus the edit warring charge... on my own talkpage). Funny, somehow.TMCk (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- But not the biscuits I love the most.TMCk (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- What health problems? Should I be worried? Also about the fake message thing, I second Bluewave's sentiments. I read over that thread. Sometimes people just want to vent, and it seems your fake message caught their eye. Since I can't send you chicken soup to make you well, I will do a novena and light candles. That always works better than chicken soup, anyway. Feel better, my friend.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, please don't worry about me. It's not a big deal, (ok it somehow is but) I deal with it as is and it might even go away at some point. Although appreciated for your concerns, the last thing I want and need is any kind of pity or people being worried about. I rarely mention it here and then usually somehow hidden in a funny or sarcastic remark. I just didn't do so above which was a mistake (should've done it by e-mail). Please don't be offended about the way I respond. Your a very nice person and if you'd like to do me a favor just forget about it. OK? Again, I'm fine and there is nothing about to worry than worry or fear than fear itself which I don't have and neither should you.
- And yes, regarding the "fake message" thing, there are always some that need to vent and take any opportunity in creating unneeded and useless drama. (The "drama" started after I'd already pulled down that message).
- Anyways, take care, TMCk (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- What health problems? Should I be worried? Also about the fake message thing, I second Bluewave's sentiments. I read over that thread. Sometimes people just want to vent, and it seems your fake message caught their eye. Since I can't send you chicken soup to make you well, I will do a novena and light candles. That always works better than chicken soup, anyway. Feel better, my friend.Malke 2010 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- But not the biscuits I love the most.TMCk (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm not worried. Der IP, wer zu meiner Gespräch-Seite kam, stellt sich heraus, eine Socke zu sein. Er ist auch bekannt als (I'll email that bit). Thought you'd be interested to know. Also don't know the word for talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good (that you don't worry anymore). BTW, I've read your short e-mail and have one word for you: Trolls. You can live with them but you shouldn't have to. BTW, "talkpage" on German Wikipedia is called "Diskussionsseite".TMCk (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Those Magdalena pictures are quite pornographic...no I mustn't look at them again...well maybe one more look... Bluewave (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
-
- I'd never heard of Rorschach, but I was disappointed :-( I was expecting it might be some other kind of biscuit! I thought there'd be some sumptuous photographs of delicious, but untouchable delights, like the Magdalenas. Still, enough of my food fantasies... Bluewave (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well then, if you can't take it anymore... although I have to give you one more "pornographic" link which shows what I have to settle with if I'm not on vacation in Spain: Muffins. They're not my favorites but also not bad at all, especially the homemade one's. Now take a cold shower and don't lock yourself into your room. It'll go away; I promise.TMCk (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
re t:Kercher
I have moved the discussion between you and Footwarrior out to a new section. (It seemed to be about over anyway, and was interrupting the thread). Feel free to revert if you think this was unnecessary. pablo 09:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
- I intended to move the whole thing off to another page but not w/o Footwarrior's consent (which I never got). Should be collapsed as off topic and wrong place by now IMO.TMCk (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have collapsed it. pablo 15:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
re this; bureaucracy maybe? pablo 14:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- I had a lot more to fix than that and did so by now. But thanks for pointing it out. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
IP edit
That was nice of you to remove the IP troll's comments.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hallo, where have you been? Are you well? Wo bist du? Ich liebe Dich.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still here although barely alive :). Danke fuer deine Fuersorge Engelchen ;) TMCk (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- PS: habe deine e-mail erhalten aber habe keine kompetente Antwort darauf. Sorry.TMCk (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sind Sie gut? Müssen Sie helfen? Ich habe Sie sehr viel vermisst. :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- PS: Sorgen Sie sich über nichts. Wenn Sie Hilfe mit irgendetwas möchten, ließ mich wissen.Malke 2010 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Sind Sie gut? Müssen Sie helfen? Ich habe Sie sehr viel vermisst. :/ Malke 2010 (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Danke Dier fuer dein herzliches Angebot :) TMCk (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ja, ja, sehr gute. [7].Malke 2010 (talk) 16:28, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Danke Dier fuer dein herzliches Angebot :) TMCk (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I gave my reasoning there and now that the AFD was just closed I offered History the opportunity to continue discussing at his or my talkpage if he feels like doing so.TMCk (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- PS: BTW, it's "gut" ;) , Best, TMCk (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a good way to go. Always best to leave things on a positive note. Thanks for the spelling reminder, sehr gut mein freund. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's how I usually think how things should be worked out here. OXOXOXOX.... XD. TMCk (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- XD XD XD XD XD XD XD...Malke 2010 (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
- That's how I usually think how things should be worked out here. OXOXOXOX.... XD. TMCk (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Just passing through...
...to say hi, and leave a couple thoughts here. TMC, thanks for trying to rein things in before they went ballistic in the SpecialK matter; I guess some things are just destined to explode anyway. It seems strange to me (and I know I'm not the only one) that the editor has only been editing for two weeks and claims to be new, yet is arguing about NPOV weight and balance issues, citing BLP policy specifics, filing 3RR reports, etc. SpecialK's point of view and argument style are starting to look somewhat familiar now as well. Hey, since you and Malke appear to be cohabitating on this talk page ;-), mind if use this space to say, Hi Malke! ...we haven't crossed paths much recently, but that doesn't mean I haven't noticed a rather significant change in the way you comport yourself in discussions lately. I don't know whether to credit MRG, Gwen or your own efforts, but the change is noticeable. I may not agree with some of your opinions and political positions, but your presentation of them seems to have improved considerably. I hope all is well, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hello my friend, hope all is well with you. Checking on you as usual. Ready for Thanksgiving?Malke 2010 (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Xenophrenic, my friend, hope all is well with you too. We're actually a lot closer politically than you know. Thanks for the comments, and go over to my talk page and say those nice things. It helps a lot when the mentors see that. Malke 2010 (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hello my friend, hope all is well with you. Checking on you as usual. Ready for Thanksgiving?Malke 2010 (talk) 03:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
@Xenophrenic: Just the usual "throw-away-account" of an experienced probably established or banned editor that isn't worth spending much time on unless maybe if they restart editing under this or any other account. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 02:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Time of year to Give Thanks
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| To The Magnificent Clean-keeper, for always being there to speak up for the other guy. It's a pleasure to work with you. :) Malke 2010 (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC) |
Quite a pleasant surprise. Will respond when I find the right words. BTW, I'm one of those rare human creatures that prefer the dark (turkey) meat so I got mine; Did you get yours? :) TMCk (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. We had a lovely Thanksgiving.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
meu amigo
Hi, I appreciate your comments and hand of friendship, which I gratefully accept. As for intimate details, I would prefer to keep personal detail on the wiki to a minimum, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Acknowledged and understood. I too usually (need to...!?) keep it that way. Obregado, TMCk (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
claims of identification by colour
(Note: Root of discusssion is here.TMCk (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC))
I already put in my source for my claim. I did my job. So please explain what you are talking about? Secret killer (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- I explained this previously on your talkpage but will try again. There are "sources" and then there are "reliable sources". If you click on the latter blue link you will see that there is a difference between them and for "doing your job" right you'll need to find and add the latter of sources.
- You also might want to lay your eye on this talkpage thread as it could solve some "labeling" problems your edits have.
Deepwater deaths
Hi, i noticed you were participating on the talk page for Deepwater Horizon spill & related deaths. There's been a bit more added to the conversation, thought you might want to join. 174.74.68.103 (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Amanda Knox and MoMK
Perhaps I am reading too much into your replies and actions, but it often feels like you are being antagonistic towards me and/or deliberately misstating or misunderstanding my positions (for example, on my talk page or on the recent discussion regarding editing the MoMK article). I understand that we come from different spaces on this issue, but I do my best to remain civil and follow the WP policies regarding editing articles, whether or not they conflict with my personal opinions (this is not to imply that you do not). I just hope that our different positions will not poison any contact we have with each other on the MoMK or the Knox movie articles.LedRush (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I can assure you that is not my intention though I understand how my comments may be perceived this way not only by you. And unless you're convinced one way or the other (re the case) our position is not that different, only our editing style sure is. This does create some friction off and on but is in my opinion far away from a poisoned atmosphere. Best to you, TMCk (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm not a skilled wiki user ao I;m not sure what I'm doing now or sho I'm talking to. I hope it's the person characterizing my edits as disruptive.
Durng my last edit, where I readded the edits I did on the 17, I added three authoritative citations including one from a US Congessman that use the language that I added to the page "deceptive" and heavy editing. My edits make the page encyclopedia like. To simply say -- at some length -- what Mr OKeefes deceptively edited videos showed, is a huge disservice to the truth. It is, itself, misleading and far from the truth. On the whole, the great weakness of the whole page was that it spends a lot of space/words describing the deceptively edited video before it mentions in very few words that all the stuff that was just written was proven to be deceptive and misleading.
It's important here to see that this is not my opinion or personal opinion. This is proven by copious citations (some of which, I attempted to add)
My edits make this page accurate and encyclopedic, moreover they were referenced and were not opinion.
Gcherrits (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Glenn
- The point is simply that your edits were anything but written from a neutral point of view, the very basic of any encyclopedia; Plus you removed some sourced content without giving any reason and didn't use any editsummary. Going forward I recommend using the article's talkpage if an edit of yours is challenged.Best, TMCk (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
James O'Keefe
Gcherrits (talk) 21:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)James O'Keefe== I'm sorry, I'm not a skilled wiki user so I'm not sure what I'm doing now or who I'm talking to. I hope it's the person characterizing my edits as disruptive. They are not. They are meant to bring clarity, even-handedness and objectivity to the Okeefe page.
The page was tipping far over to a furthering of the deceptive story mr okeefe told in his heavily edited videos. A lot of words were spent telling the deceptive story in the videos and then very little bit at the very end saying "all that stuff that you just read was an untrue story constructed by editing video. That is a great disservice to the truth.
The warnings and threats do bug me. My edits were carefully crafted to be objective and encyclopedic. They were not frivolous and they were supported by the evidence. They were absolutely not my opinion but instead were reporting sources and authorities on the record.
Yes, saying that these video's were heavily edited "lies" may sound like opinion but in fact it's just reporting the facts that have been proved my independent and objective reviewers who compared the raw video to the edited Okeefe piece.
Durng my last edit, where I replaced the edits I did on the 17, I added three authoritative citations including one from a US Congessman that use the language that I added to the page "deceptive" and heavy editing. My edits make the page encyclopedia like. To simply say -- at some length -- what Mr OKeefes deceptively edited videos showed, is a huge disservice to the truth. It is, itself, misleading and far from the truth. On the whole, the great weakness of the whole page was that it spends a lot of space/words describing the deceptively edited video before it mentions in very few words that all the stuff that was just written was proven to be deceptive and misleading.
It's important here to see that this is not my opinion or personal opinion. This is proven by copious citations (some of which, I attempted to add)
My edits make this page accurate and encyclopedic, moreover they were referenced and were not opinion.
I think it's important to not memorialize and encyclopediaize Mr/ OKeefe's deceptively edited videos and the untrue stories they tell. Instead, it's important to tell the accurate story. OKeefe found notoriety by publishing videos that were, essentially fake.
To encapsulate and borrow from the judge in OKeefe's court case: Your cause may or not be worthy, you still may not break the law (or make untruthfull videos)
I wandered into this page and now I've taken it on as sort of a cause. If we need to submit this dispute to others for arbitration then let's do that. The page is misleading now and my edits, while not perfect, pointed it in a better direction.
I think I read that there have been disputed before about this page, perhaps you came expecting more disruption. I think if you go back and review the spirit of what I did, you'll find I improved the objectivity of the page.
I hope I'm actually doing this right and writing it in the right place.
Gcherrits (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Glenn
Gcherrits (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Glenn
Thanks for watching my talk page
I wonder what Ed and I did to warrant that IP vandalism? Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I spotted
your note on Bluewave’s talk page. Basically I agree. However what I came to say is that in case you didn’t spot it, the email this user link on his page does work. Or at least it did a week ago. I think that his retirement is a great loss to Wikipedia, and not even mostly for the (certainly solid) work he did on the Kercher article. Cheers Mag.! Ian Spackman (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. He certainly is a loss for Wiki but I can't blame him and won't push him; Just said what I had in mind when I discovered his name in the wiki obituaries. Cheers TMCk (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks...
...For supporting my RfA; your comment really put a smile on my face! 
Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- That was a given after I found it 2 1/2 hours late. And now please go to the Kercher page and block everybody for disruption the moment they try to edit, no matter "where they come from". Thanks and cheers, TMCk (talk) 17:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey! I noticed that you have previously reverted an edit at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day to declare it an annual event. I've was having a conversation with a new WP:SPA about why it isn't inherently an annual event. The conversation has degraded into two editors flinging derogatory words at me. The degradation of the conversation has resulted in the two editors pushing to edit war which I won't have a part of. I'm leaving this message here for you and any other editors who have been involved with the subject being an annual event or not as an invitation to either join the conversation or simply edit the page as you see fit. Regardless of your opinion and how it compares to mine, I feel like the situation is degrading and more eyes on the situation will only help work things out. OlYellerTalktome 00:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Cody
Regarding your questions about Cody on my talk page: I have been vocal and public about my criticism of his disruptive edits. I merely believe that he shouldn't be indeffed or topic banned for what he did. When an Admin like John engages in personal attacks and incivility, I merely wanted to ask that he try and be better. I didn't file a WQA, a AN/I, or ask for any sort of punishment at all. Just a mere acknowledgment to try and be more civil.
Quite honestly, your comparison seems off. If anything, I have taken consistent views regarding incivility in both cases, while you seem to be ok with certain users engaging in such activity, but wish to indef others. Is it an accident that the personal attacks you excuse are from people who have the same opinions as you, while the editors you want to indef have different opinions?LedRush (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would've liked to say "fair enough" even so we differ in our opinions but instead I have to ask you how is an honest question disruptive?A little bit of AGF please.TMCk (talk) 12:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing as it interrupted a conversation and seemed more like an accusation than a question (complete with "no need to answer"), it seemed disruptive to me. I did try and AGF and actually address your question/accusation here, in a separate conversation. If I am wrong about the original intent of your post, I am sorry that my edit summary offended you.LedRush (talk) 12:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I was indeed just giving my 2 cents that popped into my mind after reading the conversation (that started at the article's talkpage) w/o trying to change the subject which could've happened if you would've responded over there. So no big deal from my side. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
AN/I
Hi TMCk. I noticed you mentioned my name by mistake there. I think you meant Hipocrite. As far as I know I was not involved in the conversation you're discussing there, and do not intend to be. Would you mind striking that and making a note what you've done, in the edit summary will do. No apologies or anything else necessary, just amend it if you wouldn't mind. Sorry to bother you. --John (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for that. Thanks for pointing it out. I've corrected it.TMCk (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just in case I made another mistake like that please just fix it. I'm going to
sleepbed now. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, TMCk. I hope that you don't mind me re-wording the text of your proposal in a few places - I felt that "broadly construed" had to come into it somewhere. SuperMarioMan 17:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
DSK : Split need
The Magnificent, please consider that I modified my split proposal from an new article on the 'trial' (not yet sure), to a new article on the case/sex scandal (wich already exist). Also, consider a change in your vote. Having a new article, we will be less pressured by the article's size. Yug (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Kind words
Many thanks for taking the trouble. Never mind the barnstar, please would you add The Clash to your watchlist, as I may be about to clash with someone there. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- No trouble at all, just an honest appreciation. I sure will add "the Clash" to my watchlist (if it's not there already; It fits right into my generation and I used to be a fan [and still am; Missing my old vinyls]. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's perfect. Yes, I know what you mean about the vinyls, had to sell all mine for a pittance last year as they were in a different country from me. Right, back to catch up on a bit more MoMK... Thanks again, Rothorpe (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- How funny: Didn't sell mine yet (and don't intend to) but they're stored in a differrent country too.TMCk (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
!! Rothorpe (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
MoMK edits
Hi, TMCk. Regarding the additions to MoMK, I'm concerned that edits like this come rather close to WP:COPYVIO - the source text and language is almost exactly the same. What do you think? SuperMarioMan 19:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think that what we had worked out before RockSound changed it again looked pretty good by prose, content and it took care of plagiarism. But who are we to judge when an experienced editor thinks different? TMCk (talk) 19:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Ahnold
TY! Nice to meet ya! I think I love you ;-) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 00:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Not understanding
Why on earth would you insult me when I was merely jocularly responding to you excellent answer re: Ahnold? See Personal attack. I am truly stunned! — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry DocOfSok, but it looked like a random troll edit till I found out that by Ahnold you meant Arnold (Schwarzenegger). Again, sorry for not having searched a bit before removing your post. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind
I quoted you here. --NeilN talk to me 01:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all. I remember saying that but would you happen to have the link to this quote of mine for me? Best, TMCk (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
- Here: User_talk:NeilN/Archive_7#Onigiri. The other editor wasn't too impressed but I tried... --NeilN talk to me 01:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Kershner/Kercher
Thanks for the correction. The fact I don't know how it's spelled tells you how closely I've followed the case itself. What irks me is the brazen attempts by advocates to try and turn wikipedia into a rallying station. Not appropriate at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome. BTW, there is no neutral or univolved when it comes to this article, there are only guilters and pro-Knox editors (by the standards set by the pro-Knox crowd) :) . So you must be a guilter just like me. Cheers TMCk (talk) 18:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I guess I was fooled by the jury that convicted her. Silly me. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:32, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Have some more liquor soaked carrots so it won't happen again, or was it the other way arround? Again, can't remember... :) TMCk (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- No liquor soaked carrots for me, not now, not ever, nohow. Carrot juice, maybe. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Have some more liquor soaked carrots so it won't happen again, or was it the other way arround? Again, can't remember... :) TMCk (talk) 18:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the fun in that and how do you manage to edit WP without a decent carrot cocktail once in a while????? :) TMCk (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Drugs, man. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Where is the fun in that and how do you manage to edit WP without a decent carrot cocktail once in a while????? :) TMCk (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- But leave your paws off that orange stuff despite the tempting color it must be for you. TMCk (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Yep. The only drug I'm into is Flintstone Vitamins. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- But leave your paws off that orange stuff despite the tempting color it must be for you. TMCk (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
3rr noticeboard
Thanks for closing the article.
I don't suppose I could convince you to change the title from "Result: Stale, editor promised not to further editwar and is discussing" to "Result: Stale, editor promised not to further revert and is discussing" or "Result: Stale, editor promised not to further editwar and is discussing"? I don't believe I did edit war, so I didn't promise not to "further" edit war. However, I have promised not to edit war and I promise not to further revert. It's a small detail, but an important one to me.LedRush (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
- Why not. But it doesn't change the fact that you where editwarring although you seemly didn't know.TMCk (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
B-Star
|
The Citation Barnstar | |
| I appreciate you moving on Nine-banded Armadillo so quickly. I really thought it was BS. Instead, you have earned a BS. Thanks! 98.82.23.183 (talk) 19:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC) |
In case you do so much work, you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm talking about this. 98.82.23.183 (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- I can take it back, if it makes you feel guilty. 98.82.23.183 (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
September 11 attacks
Can you please self-revert?[8] You may not know this, but there has been a 2 month edit-war over whether this section belongs in the article or now. The last editor to restore the section was blocked[9] and the admin threatened to hand out more blocks if there was further edit-warring.[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- Mmh. Interesting one sided note (with very old diffs). Seems you have no problem with that one sided pointy POV edit?TMCk (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
"George W. Bush- Six Months From Today" removed
Hi- The Magnificent Clean-keeper- I note that you recently removed a contribution I made to the George W. Bush page, citing lack of "notability" as the reason. I’m not saying you where wrong to do so (notability is an important criteria in the Wiki project), however, since the definition of "notability" is hard to pin down, could we discuss this particular instance, in greater detail, at some point? Prunesqualer (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- If you can find a secondary source discussing this video it probably could be included. I think the Huffington post had an article or some mention of it at some point.TMCk (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hah. I was right. Her it is: Where Will George W. Bush Be Six Months From Today?. Should be no problem if you add it with that source. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I really appreciate what you have done here. Thanks. Prunesqualer (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you TMCk for your clarification of Mark Bowen (writer) in Climate change denial.
Thank you TMCk for your clarification of Mark Bowen (writer) in Climate change denial. It is like "herding cats" regarding Talk:Climate change denial. (:-P 99.181.152.134 (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know what the fuss is about. If the book is in, the names should be linked. If the book belongs there is a totally different issue in which I won't put my hands in. Cheers, TMCk (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Please create a wikilink from Talk:Effects of global warming
From Talk:Effects_of_global_warming#Add_wikilink_to_Climate_Progress_website. ... it is Wikipedia:Protection_policy#semi. Thank you. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Useful link deletion
Hello Magnificent Clean-keeper, you've recently deleted a useful link from "orgasm control" and "Erotic sexual denial" and labelled them "spam".
Perhaps you interpreted the link as spam since it was simultaneously added to three pages: "orgasm control" "erotic sexual denial" and "tease and denial". Ironically, however, all three of those wiki pages are all on the same exact topic, just each with a different synonym title. Perhaps the more accurate presentation of the topic would be to merge the three identical topic pages into one. It was not my intention to create "spam" so much as make sure the three same-topic pages each had the link.
The link is a helpful link, in that it points to a non-commercial no-registration site supportive of individuals interested in the topic, and meets the criteria for included links as listed by wikipedia "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." and Links to be considered :"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources."
In my opinion, the link is essential, in that people hoping to explore the topic in greater detail can't find such links through search engines, being that search engines are absolutely overwhelmed on the topic with commercial porn-hustling sites that use the related tags to draw readers to unrelated sites, usually more oriented toward harsher topics like bondage, sadomasochism, and masturbation instruction.
None of the current wiki pages on the topic list any external links.
If you have the time, consider exploring the link, specifically it's tab labelled "About T&D", and I'm sure you will agree it is a well written, neutral, non-judgemental, non-exploitive, educational, and thorough orientation for anyone interested in that lifestyle.
Thank you for your consideration, and for helping to make wiki the great resource that it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GatoMiller (talk • contribs) 23:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Dispute resolution notification
Hello. This is to let you know that I've named you as a disputant on Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Alprazolam. causa sui (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Coffee Party edit on Annabel Park's page
Following up on your edit about Coffee Party USA on Annabel Park's page here, just wanted to double check if it was within Wikipedia guidelines to also put sources [11] describing Coffee Party USA as a liberal-oriented organization.Galafax (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
ANI Notification
Please take note you were mentioned in passing fashion at ANI here. No big deal, just wanted to make sure you got the required notification. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 05:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Ruleteros - Guatemalan collectivos
We seem to disagree about the definition of a Spanish word as used in Guatemala. I suggest that a dictionary is the appropriate source for word definitions rather than "ediplomat.com" or whatever other "sources" that may be supplied. I have checked every dictionary available to me. Ruleteros are people, not vehicles. Are you a native Guatemalan Spanish speaker or can you provide a source more dependable than some article that may very well have been written by someone else with a poor grasp of the language?
http://www.wordreference.com/definicion/ruletero http://dictionary.reverso.net/spanish-english/ruletero http://sf.dictionary.com/spanish/r0/definition/ruletero http://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/the-meaning-of/spanish-word-ruletero.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werseuch (talk • contribs) 08:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please see my comment at Talk:Share taxi.TMCk (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI
Hello TMCk, I just wanted to let you know that you are mentioned by myself in this ANI post. Thanks, Redthoreau -- (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Disputed edit of Illume1999 User page
In response to your edit summary, I've read the investigation archive. And while I understand that Illume1999 was confirmed as a sockpuppetteer, I fail to understand how that involves me, or how Illume1999 could possible be a sockpuppet of mine. Furthermore, I was not notified about anything going on with this investigation in July and was therefore denied any opportunity to respond. I thought it was closed (with my name being completely cleared) several months ago.
Once tarnished with this broad brush, it will be impossible to restore my good name. I urge you to check into this matter more thoroughly and place the blame for this incident where it belongs, not on me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- And why are you deleting the well sourced facts I've added to Ugg boots concerning the settlement of the Emu Australia lawsuit? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:25, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
what's up?
Hey TMCk, where ya been? What's new? Malke 2010 (talk) 20:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention, I heard Amanda Knox's defense has won the argument about retesting the DNA. The judge ruled the prosecution can't retest it. Apparently they got it wrong the first time round and now they want to test again. A second bite at the apple. In America, that would get her reasonable doubt. Don't know what the Italians consider it. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being very talkative lately although I found it very nice of you to leave a note here for me. Hope everything is well for you.
I don't follow each step in the Knox/Solecito case but you're right, there was some movement re the forensic. If I remember right there were not enough traces left for a retesting and the original test was put in question by the same experts that were appointed to do the retesting. Anyhow, the trial is still ongoing and we won't know the final results until the trial is concluded. Wonder if I ever get to read the books I bought (Dempsey and Nadeau) before they're becoming mostly obsolete :-))
You take care, TMCk (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2011 (UTC)- Yes, better read those fast. My interest in the case is now just down to the appellate process in Italy. Interesting to learn another system. Take care. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being very talkative lately although I found it very nice of you to leave a note here for me. Hope everything is well for you.
French fries
Re your edit, the "implausible" is not OR; it is directly supported by the Leclercq reference. I wrote "one hundred years earlier" rather than "in 1680" to make it clear to the user that this is not contemporary documentation -- why would one believe that a document (which no one but Jo Gérard has seen) dated 1781 has useful, reliable information about an event that supposedly took place in 1680? --Macrakis (talk) 17:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- "Implausible" is not attributed as an opinion of some one and therefore presented as a fact which we don't know is true. And giving the exact year (1680) is already clearly not "contemporary documentation". Since a year is given in the source we should use it.TMCk (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- Um, did you look at the source? About the "implausible", Leclercq says "une analyse pertinente des quelques lignes sorties de la plume de Joseph Gérard nous convaincra qu'elles sont à manipuler avec précaution" because: (1) there were no potatoes in the Namurois until 1735; (2) peasants could not afford fat for frying. As for the "exact year", Joseph Gérard's manuscript (assuming it is real and authentic) says "cette pratique remonte déjà à plus de cent années" -- the year 1680 comes from 1781 minus 100. That is, the original source does not cite a year, it just says "goes back over a hundred years". --Macrakis (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The secondary source used does give the year: Jo Gérard, notre peuple aurait déjà cuit des frites avant 1680..
As for the "implausible" again, we don't decide who is right and who is wrong. We leave that decision to the reader.TMCk (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
- The secondary source used does give the year: Jo Gérard, notre peuple aurait déjà cuit des frites avant 1680..
Talkback
Message added 15:55, 8 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Soapboxing fun
Which logged-out or blocked user(s) are these three, I wonder? They don't seem to be newbies, whoever they are... SuperMarioMan 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I remember a disruptive IP from the same region though it doesn't really matter. Let them waste their time with soaping.TMCk (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Nuku Hiva
Just spotted your reversion of my revert; I see now that you had indeed explained that my original contrib was in breach of the WP guidance, so thanks for putting me straight on this. Robma (talk) 09:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Userpage typo?
Normally, I would fix this without asking, but I just felt I should ask you first, in case it's part of the humor. On your userpage, you have the following written:
- . . . That is of course if you believe in evolution, otherwise they where created at the same time.
Is that what you mean, or did you mean to write this:
- . . . That is of course if you believe in evolution, otherwise they were created at the same time.
Just asking. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Torture / Weasel words
You removed the Weasel words tag from Torture/Middle ages. In my opinion the section reads as vague and conforms to the definition of weasel words quite well. Could you provide reasons for the removal of the tag? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aethralis (talk • contribs) 10:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- Instead of drive-by tagging you could change the wording yourself or clarify on talk what changes you think should be made.TMCk (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- This could be viewed as drive-by tagging, all-right. But the section really is vague. Sentences like "The Dominicans gained a reputation as some of the most fearsomely innovative torturers" and "Torture was usually conducted in secret..." are unsourced and actually more harmful than helpful. Claim that "woodcuts of English prisoners" contributes something to the understanding of medieval torture is doubtful. Woodcuts become widespread towards the end of the 15th century, and this is already early-modern period. The only useful piece of information is the 1252 date, and this only deals with ecclesiastically sanctioned torture. There is only a half-sentence about laws concerning secular judicial torture. So... really there is much work to do to amend this section, but this would need more time than I have in my hands right now. Still, I would think that some warning for the sections quality would be useful. → Aethralis 14:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the section needs improvement and a Template:Refimprove section should be added. I'll do so in a moment.TMCk (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I also added the template to the history section above.TMCk (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the section needs improvement and a Template:Refimprove section should be added. I'll do so in a moment.TMCk (talk) 14:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. If not someone beats me to it, I'll try to find time to add some info there. → Aethralis 10:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Stephen Colbert
Hi The Magnificent Clean-keeper,
Good addition to Stephen Colbert but, you left the page with a cite error! This appears to be caused by use of the <ref></ref> tag in the "Further reading and External link" section. If you remove these tags from the URL in that section it should be OK. Unfortunately the page is semi-protected, or I would do it. :( Regards, 220.101.30 talk\edits (aka 220.101) - 08:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Some one fixed it already.TMCk (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Meddling
I closed the italics in your post here - revert if that wasn't what you intended. pablo 11:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)